Ramalingam v. Saraswathi
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal because the appellant's counsel was unable to assist. The order allowed restoration later if sufficient reasons existed.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to restore the second appeal in future if he has good and sufficient reason to restore. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 10.07.2017
Coram
The Hon'ble Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran
Second Appeal No.1171 of 2000
Ramalingam .. Appellant/Plaintiff
/versus/
1.Saraswathi
2.Janaki Ammal
3.Elangovan
4.Anbalagan
5.Maganathan
6.Arulmozhi
7.Madheswaran
8.Suseela
9.Gunasekaran
10.Prabakaran ... Respondents 1 to 10/
Defendants 3 to 12
11.Sathiavani
12.Mala
13.Thara
14.R.Krishnan
15.R.Arjunan
16.Chinnappan
17.Nagammal
18.Kamalam
19.Parameswari .. Respondents 11 to 19/
Defendants 14 to 22
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 made in A.S.No.28 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 made in O.S.No.107 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Salem.
For Appellants :M/s.P.T.Ramadevi
For Respondents:Mr.T.T.Ravichandran for R4 to R7 and R9 R1,R11,R14-not ready notice R3, R10, R12, R13,R15 to R19-No appearance R2-Died
R8-alive vide Court Order Dated:07/06/2017
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal can be decided in the absence of the appellant's counsel.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ramalingam
- respondent
Saraswathi
- respondent
Janaki Ammal
- respondent
Elangovan
- respondent
Anbalagan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court